100-400mm vs. 70-300L for basically the same exact price used? Which one?

[birdman]

I know the 70-300L is newer and with better optics and IS system. I have the older 70-300 IS (non-L) and the 300mm IQ is pretty bad. The other option for me is the 70-200 F/4 IS, but after spending a week in San Diego, 200mm on the beach just may not cut it.

I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone. I've seen sample shots of the 100-400 and they are very good. Same with the 70-300L. What I always hear is from 200mm to 300mm is not THAT noticeable. But from 200mm to 400mm is significantly longer, of course. What to do?

 

[Random Orbits]

The 100-400 makes more sense because you are distance limited.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

The difference between 200mm and 300mm seemed rather trivial when I first experimented at the camera store (seriously, it's like the equivalent of taking a small step forward)...but out in the field, it actually CAN make a difference. And the farther away your subject is, of course, the more difference you will notice.

I chose the 70-300L over the 100-400 due to its higher image quality and lighter weight (win-win for me). I assumed I could possibly even crop the 300mm image to approximate 400mm and still get equivalent quality to what I would have gotten with the 100-400 at 400.

But YMMV. I would try both and see. Basically, your choice will be between extra reach (100-400) and lighter weight (70-300). Also, remember the wide end as well. 70 vs 100 is quite a difference if you need to pull back.

Are you shooting 1.6x or full-frame? When maximum reach is needed, it is REALLY nice to have the 1.6x factor that an APS-C camera gives you.

 

[traveller]

I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone.

I take it this is a joke... If it isn't, then you seriously need to take a look in the mirror and decide whether you are a photographer or just a voyeuristic perv masquerading as one.

 

[briansquibb]

I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone.

I take it this is a joke... If it isn't, then you seriously need to take a look in the mirror and decide whether you are a photographer or just a voyeuristic perv masquerading as one.

;D ;D ;D I am a voyeuristic perv masquerading as photographer ;D ;D ;D

: : : I need the good IS when taking beach shots handolding the 600 : : :

 

[briansquibb]

The 70-300L gives excellent IQ and contrast thoughout its range

 

[K-amps]

The 70-300L gives excellent IQ and contrast thoughout its range

I agree. I had a new 70-300L. sold it and got a 100-400L... kind of regret it. The IQ on the 70-300L is far ahead of the older 100-400L. The only problem is it does not take canon TC's... but will take Kenko etc

 

[unfocused]

Well, I actually have both. Maybe seems a little crazy but they are very different lenses in my opinion. If your main interest is wildlife and birds, then the 100-400 is definitely the best choice. For an all-around long zoom that you can keep in your bag at all times, a 70-300mm is much more practical.

I wouldn't want to carry around the 100-400 all day, every day. The 70-300, while a substantial lens, is much easier to manage. So, as with most advice, it depends on what you intend to use the lens for.

 

[ScottyP]

I know the 70-300L is newer and with better optics and IS system. I have the older 70-300 IS (non-L) and the 300mm IQ is pretty bad. The other option for me is the 70-200 F/4 IS, but after spending a week in San Diego, 200mm on the beach just may not cut it.

I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone. I've seen sample shots of the 100-400 and they are very good. Same with the 70-300L. What I always hear is from 200mm to 300mm is not THAT noticeable. But from 200mm to 400mm is significantly longer, of course. What to do?

The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer, or you need to construct some sort of "girl blind" to conceal yourself in.
Or, perhaps you could actually MEET a girl and then you could have her permission to photograph her. :-*

 

[briansquibb]

The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer

Now that would get me locked away ...... or I would have to have an all over waxing and shave the beard off :-[ :-[ :-[

 

[ScottyP]

The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer

Now that would get me locked away ...... or I would have to have an all over waxing and shave the beard off :-[ :-[ :-[

Do let us know if/when you decide to do it, though; it would make a great photo-op!

 

[scottkinfw]

A girl with a beard?

The answer is obvious. You need to either disguise yourself as a bikini-clad girl to get in closer

Now that would get me locked away ...... or I would have to have an all over waxing and shave the beard off :-[ :-[ :-[

 

[lol]

Owning both currently, there isn't any real difference in optical quality between them that I can see (on 7D) and I wouldn't worry about that. I'll happily use either at any focal length wide open, when the only time I stop down is if I need more depth of field.

It was mentioned the difference between 200-300mm didn't appear great, that could well be the case if tested at relatively close focus. The 70-300L does suffer from noticeable focal length shrinkage when close focusing, where I can't say I noticed any on the 100-400L.

Aside from that, the differences are pretty much well known, with the 70-300L having the newer IS system, better sealing, and being much smaller and lighter. The 100-400L gets you the extra reach, and love it or hate it, you have the pump action zoom. If you put a gun to my head and say I could only have one of these, I'd pick the 100-400L without hesitation.

 

[Lnguyen1203]

I had the 100-400 and sold it to get the 300 f2.8 and the 70-300L. The 300f2.8 is amazing and is my go to lens when I want the big gun since it takes the 1.4x and 2x well. I'm much happier with the 70-300L as the walk around lens, lighter, sharper, smaller. I did not get sharp pics with the 100-400 at 400mm, but it may be just me.

I wouldn't recommend the 300f2.8 as a snooping lens for taking biniki-clad women though as it is VERY obvious. You definitely need a girl blind to conceal it

 

[briansquibb]

I had the 100-400 and sold it to get the 300 f2.8 and the 70-300L. The 300f2.8 is amazing and is my go to lens when I want the big gun since it takes the 1.4x and 2x well. I'm much happier with the 70-300L as the walk around lens, lighter, sharper, smaller. I did not get sharp pics with the 100-400 at 400mm, but it may be just me.

I wouldn't recommend the 300f2.8 as a snooping lens for taking biniki-clad women though as it is VERY obvious. You definitely need a girl blind to conceal it

I got 70-300L then ungraded the 7F to a 1D4 so got a 400 f/2.8.

I am now hooked on the large whites My 1DS3 now has a 200 f/2 glued on - very, very sharp and so much contrast from this combo! Taking portraits is SO good and easy

My walkabout is the 1D4 with 70-300 ;D

 

[winoheel]

Well, I actually have both. Maybe seems a little crazy but they are very different lenses in my opinion. If your main interest is wildlife and birds, then the 100-400 is definitely the best choice. For an all-around long zoom that you can keep in your bag at all times, a 70-300mm is much more practical.

I wouldn't want to carry around the 100-400 all day, every day. The 70-300, while a substantial lens, is much easier to manage. So, as with most advice, it depends on what you intend to use the lens for.

...Same for me! This post says it all....

 

[birdman]

I am OP: To answer some of your questions and comments, it was pretty much intended as a joke. there was a Kim Kardashian clone at Mission beach in San Diego and she was photographed by another photographer (he was a hired gun I assume). I had to see what all the fuss was about and snapped a couple myself.

Sorry, I am a 30-something male and still find women attractive. I have had plenty of girlfriends/flings so no need to explain myself either. But some of your comments were funny. Cheers.

 

[birdman]

I am OP: To answer some of your questions and comments, it was pretty much intended as a joke.

Maybe you should post a list of your equipment in your tag or footer, so everybody can judge how much advice you really need. And looking at the serious, helpful replies you generated, you should think about switching to another forum or getting a life so you don't need to bother other people here.

That's just damn rude my friend. If you'd read, the only joke intended was concerning bikinis. I wanted serious advice. Go back to your dark dungeon, evil one!!

 

[birdman]

You win, Marsu42. Not a troll, and will be clearer next time. BTW, what telephoto did you have before the 70-300L ? I am about to get rid of my (non-L) 70-300 and 100 macro. Thanks

 

[Marsu42]

You win, Marsu42. Not a troll, and will be clearer next time. BTW, what telephoto did you have before the 70-300L ? I am about to get rid of my (non-L) 70-300 and 100 macro. Thanks

Ok. I had a legacy 100-300 USM from the good ol' days which did ok on analog, and I used it for quick macro with a macro filter. But on the long end the sharpness on 18mp is so bad at open aperture it's better to use my 100mm macro (!) lens for tele and then crop - my old lens now has its well earned place in my "hall of fame" cupboard with my eos rt.

That's why I'd always recommend a "real" tele (starting with 70-300L or 70-200/f4 if 200mm is enough) or none at all. There are said to be some ok 3rd party teles, but I didn't try these because the ring usm af on the Canons is very good and this is important on tele range with a small depth of field, while it doesn't matter that much to a midrange zoom used at f4 to f8.